California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

2703. Nonpayment of Overtime Compensation - Proof of Overtime Hours Worked

Download PDF
2703.Nonpayment of Overtime Compensation—Proof of
Overtime Hours Worked
State law requires California employers to keep payroll records showing
the hours worked by and wages paid to employees.
If [name of defendant] did not keep accurate records of the hours
worked by [name of plaintiff], then [name of plaintiff] may prove the
number of overtime hours worked by making a reasonable estimate of
those hours.
In determining the amount of overtime hours worked, you may consider
[name of plaintiff]’s estimate of the number of overtime hours worked
and any evidence presented by [name of defendant] that [name of
plaintiff]’s estimate is unreasonable.
New September 2003; Revised June 2005, December 2005
Directions for Use
This instruction is intended for use when the plaintiff is unable to provide evidence
of the precise number of hours worked because of the employer’s failure to keep
accurate payroll records. (See Hernandez v. Mendoza (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 721,
727–728 [245 Cal.Rptr. 36].)
Sources and Authority
• Right of Action for Unpaid Overtime. Labor Code section 1194(a).
Employer Duty to Keep Payroll Records. Labor Code section 1174(d).
• “Although the employee has the burden of proving that he performed work for
which he was not compensated, public policy prohibits making that burden an
impossible hurdle for the employee. . . . ‘In such situation . . . an employee
has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for
which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to
show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable
inference. The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with
evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative
the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee’s evidence.
If the employer fails to produce such evidence, the court may then award
damages to the employee, even though the result be only approximate.’ ”
(Hernandez, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 727, internal citation omitted.)
• “It is the trier of fact’s duty to draw whatever reasonable inferences it can from
the employee’s evidence where the employer cannot provide accurate
information.” (Hernandez, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 728, internal citation
• “Absent an explicit, mutual wage agreement, a fixed salary does not serve to
compensate an employee for the number of hours worked under statutory
overtime requirements. . . . [¶] Since there was no evidence of a wage
agreement between the parties that appellant’s . . . per week compensation
represented the payment of minimum wage or included remuneration for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, . . . appellant incurred damages of
uncompensated overtime.” (Hernandez, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at pp. 725–726,
internal citations omitted.)
Secondary Sources
Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 11-D, Payment
of Wages, ¶ 11:456 (The Rutter Group)
Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 11-F, Payment
of Overtime Compensation, ¶ 11:955.2 (The Rutter Group)
Chin et al., California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, Ch. 11-J, Enforcing
California Laws Regulating Employee Compensation, ¶ 11:1478.5 (The Rutter
1 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 5, Administrative and Judicial
Remedies Under Wage and Hour Laws, § 5.72[1] (Matthew Bender)
21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 250, Employment Law: Wage
and Hour Disputes, § 250.40 (Matthew Bender)